It is very hard to know, the basic problem is that it takes a destructive test to know if the receiver is bad or not. The predominate problem at the time was over heating billets in the forge shop. The US Army was not putting money into Springfield Armory, was not equipping their factory with the latest technology, so their workers were using out modeled equipment and outdated, even by the standards of 1906, gages. Pyrometers were recent, but not new, new, but the Army was not buying them, SA required their workers to judge forge furnace temperatures by eye. Obviously that was highly variable. If the front end of the production line at SA was so primitive and barbaric you can guess the rest was not particularly better. Anyway once the billets were burnt, they stayed burnt, they are structurally brittle, and they can’t be made unburnt by any method. Sort of like burnt toast, burn toast bad and there is nothing you can do to make it fresh again.
This is what real experts were saying about the things only 27 years after the things were built:
American Rifleman Dope Bag Oct 1945
“All old Springfields Weak”
A long letter written by gunsmith, R.E Simmons to Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag, describes a SHT Springfield that had blown. This section was about midway:
“I just received a letter from George Vitt of the A. F. Holden Company. This company is one of the foremost heat-treaters in the United States and he says that they will not even think of accepting one of these old actions for reheat-treating. To quote him:
“The old Springfield receivers were made of cheap, almost plain, carbon steel, that was merely carburized and quenched. The type of steel used would not readily lend itself to good results from the best heat-treating practices, even though there are one or two outfits in Pennsylvania and elsewhere ** who advertise the so called reheat-treated Springfields for sale I would no more trust these receivers without making a chemical analysis and without testing them on the Rockwell machine that I would jump off the Empire State Building.
From the references I have, the reheat-treatment of these receivers amounts to the same thing as the so called double heat treatment that was practiced at the Springfield Armory prior to 1929 In other works neither of the two is much good for the reason of low-grade material used in the receiver” (End of Mr. Vitt’s quote)”
Mr Simmons, in a bridging section in his letter, states he had worked in the Ordnance Department during WW2 and that he had tested SHT receivers after rebuild with proof loads and Mr Simmons had not seen any break, making him skeptical about these receivers being structurally deficient, but he states “it is best not to recommend these old actions for any of the more powerful loads”
“Incidentally, I noticed that you mention a well-known reheat job which is being done on these Springfield receivers by a well known firm. I wish to state that many of these old actions treated by this firm (which is like the one I sent you), are letting go in every direction. In fact, I personally believe these are about the worst in the bunch, because they simply softened the receivers, which would allow a very powerful proof load to be fired without any danger, but which allowed the bolt to gradually set back, increasing the head space dangerously.
Mr Ness, the editor of the Dope Bag adds a long section starting with this
“Comments: I agree with P.O. Ackley that the only good Springfield action is one made of nickel steel….
The attitude of the metallurgists is that the poor material in these Springfield actions makes any of the carbon steel variety undesirable, including those double reheat-treated at Springfield Armory in the series above 800,000. “
So, it is hard to know if you have one of the good receivers. But even one of the “good” receivers was made of low grade material that now is used for rebar and rail road ties. Because the steels at the time had high slag and impurities, the stuff is even not as good as the same steel made today.
Another issue is fatique life. Metal fatigue prior to 1920 appears to be understood in a very rudimentary ways. The beginnings of advanced stress analysis theory was also after the design of the 1903: the Maxwell-Huber-Hencky-von Mises theory on the yield of ductile materials dates from 1913. While all of this is irrelevant to the faith of Foam at the Mouth Fanatic Fans (FATMFF’s), it is indicative of the overall state of the art at the time. However today, assuming that the service stresses are not exceeded, fatigue lifetimes can be calculated, but they must be taken with a grain of salt. The real world is never as nice as the computer. So, where I am going is that these old rifles went through at least one service lifetime, if it was rebarreled, at least two. No one had any expectation that these things were last in service indefinitely, and as usage increases, the likely hood of metal fatigue increases. You must also understand that to Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, their rifle was a heavy thing to lug around, and since they did not own the thing, when it was a damn nuisance, they treated it poorly. Overstresses reduce fatigue lifetimes by orders of magnitude. So I don't recommend anymore proof testing with cartridges.
This is going to be an experiment, posting this excel table I created comparing the metal properties of the single heat treat and double heat treat receivers, and the data is partially scrambled
:
Because the table is a bit scrambled it may be hard to follow, but Class A and Class C steels are plain carbon steels, with a big of Manganese tossed in for impact resistance. It was as good as any in 1895. Steel technology was advancing as fast as the semi conductor revolution back then, so by the time you get to 1906, Class A and Class C steels are old tech and nickle steels are replacing them. Remember the British M1914 and Winchester were using nickle steels prior to WW1. Alloy steels are superior in every category, except cost, to plain carbon steels, they treat treat evenly, the yeild strength is higher, and this is a very important point. You don't want to use a piece of metal that has deformed, that is, was stressed past yeild. It is not long for the world. And another issue is the fatique life is much better with these alloys.
Code:
[SIZE="2"]
Carbon Manganese Max Phos Max Sulpher Nickel Component
Use
Manganese Steel WD1325 .20-.30 1.0-1.30 0.05 0.05 Receivers
And Bolts
Nickel Steel W.D. 2340 .35-.45 .50-.80 0.04 0.05 3.25-3.75 Receivers
And Bolts
Manganese Steel W.D. 1350 .45-.55 1.00-1.30 0.05 0.05 Barrels
Physical properties in annealed, not heat treated state Tensile Strength psi Elastic limit psi Elongation % Contraction of area % Component use
Class A 110,000 75,000 20 45 Barrels
Class C 75,000 50,000 25 50 Receivers and bolts
[B]Modern Steel Properties[/B]
AISI 1118 close to class C 103,000 59,300 19 Mock Carburized, 1450 F quenched, tempered.
AISI 4820 close to WD2340 163,000 120,000 15% Mock Carburized, reheat 1450 reheat, water quench
AISI 4140 270,000 240,000 11% N 1600F, Reheat 1550F, OQ 500F, temper M1 carbine HT
[/SIZE]
The Charpy impact test is an excellent predictor of fatique life. Just look at how much more energy it takes to shear alloy steels, especially at low temperatures. This test has been used to identify metal toughness, and toughness as a metal property is right up there with yeild in firearm applications. You see the load is an impact load and you want metal that will absorb the energy without shattering. Plain carbon steels are not that great in comparison.
8620 was used in the Garand receivers, it is a good steel. 4140 was used in the M1 Carbine and is a very common steel for firearms. I think Winchester used 4140 for all of the M70 production. A bud of mine, a West Point Metallurgy Instructor, he recommended 4340 for bolts and receivers. And you can see, 4340 is a tough steel.
Code:
[SIZE="2"]Charpy Notched Impact
Close to Class C
Open Hearth 0.20C, 0.90 Mn 0.22Si, 0.03Al, Fine grain Tensile RT 65 Kpsi
F ft lb
68 39
32 26
-25 20
-50 10
8620 N1600F, T1000F, OQ1600 T 900
F ft lb
75 45
-40 42
-180 26
4140 N1650, OQ1575, T1075
F ft lb
75 93
0 87
-40 87
-100 65
4340 N1650, OQ1525, T1100
F ft lb
75 82
75 82
-40 82
-100 77 [/SIZE]
So anyway, even a good receiver from that era is going to be weaker from a structural viewpoint, from modern receivers, just due to the metal used.
So what to do? I would recommend doing what the Marines did. From a poster on another site, the Marines took the action out of the stock, took the bolt out of the action, and hit the action twice with a heavy hammer. If the receiver breaks, you probably saved yourself a trip to the hospital. If it does not break, well, it is still an old receiver. Could be good, could last a long time. Could go Kaboom too. Hard to know.
** Note: Sedgley was in Philadelphia.